[Closed] Rushup edge resurfacing

Rather than telling the councillor he's "talking bobbins", could you give him photos of an acceptable trail? With smooth bits and bumpy bits? Because otherwise he simply will not understand.

Of interested to mainly walkers- those diggers at the top of WLT? They are now going to complete the path sanitisation by filling in the gaps of derwent rocks from the top- where it leads down to the start of the Cut throat bridge descent.

Of course- that IS a footpath so of interest to ramblers/walkers.

Rather than telling the councillor he's "talking bobbins", could you give him photos of an acceptable trail? With smooth bits and bumpy bits? Because otherwise he simply will not understand.

Yes, don't worry, I'm trying to put something together that will convey my points adequately. It's rather hard responding to something that's so obviously just designed to fob people off, though.

Si- I was at a PDMTB meeting with Adge Last just earlier this year. PDMTB has spoken to him before and no doubt will speak to him again. He's not a mountain biker, though. He does ride bikes, and his daughter is a very keen MTB'er.

It's rather hard responding to something that's so obviously just designed to fob people off, though.

We been sent copies of a press release that's on their website.

Any chance of getting Annie's and her father’s comments on this out in public?

I'm sure the word of one of our top athletes will carry some weight?

It's rather hard responding to something that's so obviously just designed to fob people off, though.

This is my effort. The main point of my initial e-mail was why are you wasting my council tax and I never said I was a mountain biker so it was very easy to pick apart their response.

Dear Andrew/Andrea

Thanks for fobbing me off, your standard response is greatly appreciated. However, it does not answer the most pertinent question I asked when I first e-mailed (and possibly the most important one), and raises many more.

Firstly, the question from my original e-mail that was most pressing was why the money that I pay in council taxes has been diverted from social care, hospitals, road maintenance and so on to fund something so menial? The council magazine I received last week stated that you need to save £157 million, I recall back in January my council taxes were raised and there are news articles relating to the cutting of jobs and reduction in number of mobile libraries. How on earth do you propose to save money if you fritter it away on projects like this?

The cost of these works is more than my wife and I will ever pay in council tax to DCC if we continued to pay our current rate, unless we lived to be 96. Is two people's contribution to the council so unimportant that it can be blown like this?

Secondly, there are several new questions raised by your response. You state that mountain bikers prefer rockier routes. This is true, but I have not stated that I am a mountain biker. There is significant disgruntlement amongst the hiking community about the smoothing of trails into little more than urban paths. This is not interesting to walk on. Also walkers have the option to avoid this route if they find the small steps too difficult- the area is mostly open access land and they can go there.

Mountain bikers and horse riders do not have the same luxury. They MUST use Rushup Edge and Chapel Gate. If they want a smooth route there is the option of taking Sheffield Road. But as the majority of people using Rushup Edge are hoping for a day in nature they are happy to take on the small risk of navigating a natural route. No one heads into the Peak District to walk, horse ride or cycle on a smooth man-made surface. Also you are surely aware that the road planing surface that DCC have previously used is exceptionally dangerous for horses, more so than the eroded surface that you are replacing. The horse riding group Seaba are currently fighting Stockport Council's bitmaccing programme as the surface is very slippy under the hooves of horses.

Further to this why do you think that the majority of users will want to head out for a day in the countryside to look at the awful view of an inconsiderate man-made road? I note that the current underlying aggregate is limestone, which does not fit in with this gritstone area of the park. I also assume, given that it has been stated there is an intention to cover this with a top dressing, that tarmac planing will be put on top of the non-local sub-base as has taken place on Chapel Gate. This was perhaps the biggest mistake in the work undertaken on Chapel Gate- this surface has spoiled the view. While the path used to be of a colour and texture that blended in to the surrounding hillside, being of the same material, the new surface contrasts sharply. Its harsh colour and straight lines have spoilt the view of the surrounding area.

So you are, in fact, benefitting the smallest number of users- the minority of walkers and cyclists who head out to the countryside to have a very easy day out suitable for all abilities. Regardless of the fact that the majority of these will actually head to places such as Ladybower, Tissington and Monsal where proper facilities for these users already exist. I would be amazed if any of these users are aware of the work to Chapel Gate and Rushup Edge, nor have any interest in climbing the steep hill out of Edale. Also, none of these users will want to look at a man-made feature which is totally at odds with the surrounding landscape and built with such a lack of consideration for its environment.

Please send me a proper response as soon as possible, addressing the issues I have raised rather than a generic response. I pay my council taxes for you to do your job responsibly, not take the path of least resistance by producing cut and paste e-mails and to invest in what is important to the community which you are currently failing to do.

"We're not killjoys" - well, actually, you are!

Anyway, it seems that this was "approved" at the same stage as the Chapel Gate works several years ago? Was anyone aware that it included this section of trail? I recall speaking to thew PDNPA ranger (after descending Chapel Gate in tears....) who assured me that no new work was planned as they didn't have any budget. Now, I could accept that this was some time ago and new budget has become available, but they can't have it both ways! Although it does seem that the PDNPA are about as out of the loop as we are!

Fair enough Luke but doesn't answer the questions I asked... As you know us you'll know my opinion of the work but that's not my point.... No-one it would appear has engaged in the established processes to facilitate consultation so on what basis can we object when we think we haven't been consulted.

If you had engaged with the bike representative then why was information not passed on... If you felt he didn't represent your interests sufficiently then why hasn't some from peakmtb applied to join the forum. Nothing states there can be only one member per user group.

Access forums are actually great... You'd have this regular contact with other user groups, you'd build up relationships and respond as a collective. For something such as this you could gave requested site visits, plans and no doubt a small working group would have been set up to inform the forums response.

This is all positive engagement with other user groups through recognised channels... It gives structure and credibility to such a process not dispirate and fragmented individual meetings and wondering why you are only being fed lip service.

Cllr Botham doesn't know what he's talking about, he definitely hiding behind the safety, access, maintainence words. Likewise his comments that "many people" cannot access the trail as a result or erosion, nonsense. Walkers can access far rockier trails than can a biker, likewise horses can deal with the rocky steps but not so much lots of smaller rocks which are like marbles to them.

Right off to email him ...

Me'n'her have both received the same reply as^^. Nice, given we both asked different questions.

Fairly shirty response sent back, CC'd to all the usual addresses.

Just received the cut n paste response below, they didn't even bother to keep the same colour font for my name! Call about lazy!!

Thank you for your interest in the work we are currently carrying out to repair erosion at Chapel Gate.
We realise the Peak District National Park is an area which is close to many people’s hearts and they feel very passionately, as we do, about its protection and maintenance.
Up to 16 million people visit the park every year. We want as many of them as possible to have an enjoyable experience, whether they’re out for a drive, walking, running, or cycling, and to encourage them to return to boost the local economy.
However, the very nature of the park’s varied uses mean we’re never going to be able to please everyone with the work we do to maintain and repair its rights of way.
Mountain bikers prefer challenging, rockier routes, whereas these might not be suitable for horse riders or walkers.
We carry out maintenance on paths in the greatest need of repair or with potential to benefit the greatest number of users.
The work at Chapel Gate was approved in November last year, as part of our Green Lane Action Plan, and has been discussed at the Peak District Local Access Forum, which includes representatives from many different interest groups and comments on planned improvement works. It is expected to take around six weeks to complete.
Many areas of the path are in a serious state of deterioration. Work is needed to combat erosion, prevent further deterioration and make the route safe. Currently, many people are unable to use Chapel Gate because of the rocky ‘steps’ which have evolved due to damage over time.
We’re not killjoys and don’t want to stop people having fun, but we have a legal obligation to maintain our routes. Unfortunately, this means we have to carry out some maintenance work which won’t be popular with everyone.
We understand that you may not agree with the work we’re doing but hope you can appreciate the difficult position we find ourselves in.

Regards
Councillor Andy Botham
Deputy Cabinet Member for Jobs Economy and Transport

SHOCKING!

An idea for someone with access to photo libraries or other records.

Could we find some images of before and after for dry stone wall repairs ? We can show this to DCC and Cllr Botham as to what a repair looks like. We can then show a picture of a breeze block wall to highlight what the current maintainence on Rushup Edge is in comparison.

[img] [/img]

Like that?

I like that comparison. I really think we should be pushing at the angle why isn't this maintenance being carried out sensitively like on the Roych.

which includes representatives from many different interest groups

NIMBYS who live locally and very vocal? 😀

Question- the lane has been 'leaking' out onto the road that passes the bottom by the gate- are they sealing (what is the correct term) the repairs in properly so when theres heavy rain there wont be a flow of sand/material out onto that fast flowing road bend for cyclists/road users to deal with?

I've replied to the generic email making the point regarding the sympathetic maintenance of Roych and that walking routes, for me, are more interesting when rocky. I don't think it will make the blind bit of difference, but we can't let them stop us having a voice. Keep at it one and all.

And another recipient of the generic email response. Really quite astonishing that they failed to think that it would have been noticed in forums such as this.

I have also made the point on their fb page regarding safety. If, is as believed, the work is meant to improve safety, I would be interested to hear their views on the recent mountain biker accident on Stanage Causeway this weekend. It was highlighted at the time of the works that smooth surfaces plus water bars every 50 or 100m are much more likely to lead to high speed accidents. Whilst I don't know the specifics of the accident, Edale MRT described it as a substantial injuries requiring Helimed evacuation to Sheffield major trauma unit. I can only think that were the previous surface largely in place, or the work undertaken in a more considerate and sympathetic manner, this perhaps could have been avoided.

I went with:

"Dear Mr Botham

I do appreciate the difficult position you find yourself in, however I would respond by making two simple points:

1. It is not just mountain bike riders who are appalled by this work. Many runners and walkers are also against this insensitive and unnecessary work which makes the sunken road both ugly and more dangerous.
2. With a modicum of thought it would be possible to do these works and still leave part of the bridleway suitable or cyclists and other Peak users who do not want to walk/run on a path that they might find in a municipal park rather than a National Park.

I implore you to stop these works now and consult with the interested parties and find a sensible solution, rather than continuing with such an aggressive and ill-advised policy."

It was highlighted at the time of the works that smooth surfaces plus water bars every 50 or 100m are much more likely to lead to high speed accidents

I've been told we don't want to play this angle up too much, as the DCC response is that if the gravel isn't good enough, they'll just tarmac it instead....

(please note, there's an amount of Chinese whispers here, but I suspect not very much!)

someones wife on mums net?

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2219547-Derbyshire-Council-wasting-70k

@munrobiker

I pay my council taxes for you to do your job responsibly,

I doubt that's what your council tax is used for.

Jekkyl - cos there's no chance that it's a mountain biker who is also a mum?

Anyway, it's interesting to see the opinions of an more neutral group, which whole there were some sympathies, there was an opinion that a) £70k isn't that much and b) safety trumps everything.

Assume DCC are behind this too

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/britain-to-dig-massive-tunnel-for-no-reason-whatsoever-2014102792142

@jekkly - liking LadyMud - great forum name !

@NorthernMat - yes absolutely perfect. Let me try and use that.

Just thinking back to my first MTB ride 6 years ago, when I attempted Charity Lane in Macclesfield Forest (for anyone not familiar with it, it's a rocky trail with a stream going down it and lots of loose stones and boulders). It was way out of my comfort zone, so I rode what I could, walked what I couldn't ride. It didn't once enter my head to complain to the council and ask them to sanitise it to make it easier. Several rides later, I could ride it all.
I just don't get the access for all in every place argument.

@jambalaya - I see where you're coming from but it would not just be better to show them pictures of the Roych and say "Do it like that"?

Just sent the following reply to the throwaway generic toss I got back from Mr Botham.

Dear Mr <insert clumsily pasted name here>

Thank you for taking at least five minutes to draft a non-committal, waffling, generic email that you can just send out to everyone who has contacted you in the hope that you'll get rid of us. It is not going to be that easy.

I've chosen to see your disregard and raise you some sarcasm there.

This whole affair is getting pretty embarrassing for you guys. You already have the PDNP requesting a cessation of works and an immediate site visit and letting us know about it. That sort of thing doesn't happen very often between organizations such as DCC and PDNP. You are now paying the price for your high-handed and non-consultative approach.

I mean, fair enough that you disregard riff-raff like us, but not bothering to consult one of the major stakeholders, really? I hope you are as embarrassed as you should be by the over-zealous approach of council officers.

Please can you use the sheer depth and breadth of the emails and social media posts to justify a cessation of the current scheme? My honest hope would be that you would actually just remove all the material you have dumped. However, a more consultative approach and a revised scheme that would leave some interest in the route for all users would also go a long way to repairing the PR damage you have inflicted on yourselves and any future relations with many user groups.

This is not a few malevolent individuals hassling you. You should have realized by now that this is quite a broad-based movement whose formation was only caused by the ill-advised works on Rushup Edge.

Thank you for your time.

Might have got a bit carried away with the sarcasm, but there you go.......

I like that, would it be ironic if I cut and paste it to them as well.

Currently, many people are unable to use Chapel Gate because of the rocky ‘steps’ which have evolved due to damage over time.

Nonsense, those steps have probably been there our whole lifetime. I can ride rushup in both directions on a hardtail and I can walk it no problem as well. If a few horse riders can't handle it then they should wait until they have developed the necessary skills.
I personally think the trail had a rugged, worn, natural look that fitted perfectly with the peak district. A limestone path simply does not give the same experience, people do actually want to feel like they have been out in the countryside. At present the peak district is being run like a park in a city, if they keep going like this you will soon be able to roller skate around it.

I am still angry! 👿

Evening guys, not read back through the last two pages to apolagies if some of this has been covered.

1. Had a reply from PeakHorse power, and as I expected its not a good surface for a horse.

[b]"We are aware of what is going on and been in touch with one of the mountain bike groups and we are taking up with Peak Park, DCC etc including via the Local Access Forum (two of our committee members on this). One of our members has been up to take a look and take photos. You are right - you wouldn't be able to ride a horse up there at the moment.So we are on the case!"[/b]

2. I've also had a reply from Friends of the Peak. They have a section on the website called Influencing Landscapes, have a look at the link it sounds like they are the right people to oppose DCC's desecration ( http://www.friendsofthepeak.org.uk/Campaigns/Influencing_landscapes )

[b]"Underneath the official speak, I think the NPA officers must be seething. FPD will be adding weight to everyone's concerns and I would suggest that instead of dealing with officers at DCC (who have Teflon skin), it's best to take it upstairs to local councillors plus Andy Botham and Joan Dixon, the dep. and cabinet member for transport issues, which includes green lanes and RoW.

Hope this helps. Please post on our FB thread too!"
[/b]

2a. Does anyone have any contact details for Andy Botham or Joan Dixon???

3. Walkers forum don't seem to know about the work, and arn't overly keen on it so far

[b] http://www.forum.walkersforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=35&t=3884 [/b]

But dcc have already stated that they can't keep everyone happy...

Anyone know of one single person, other than Peter White, who is happy about this?

It might actually be worth reporting to the highways inspector for the area that the works are discharging onto the highway.

[url= http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/council/councillors/councillor_profiles/joan_dixon.asp ]http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/council/councillors/councillor_profiles/joan_dixon.asp[/url]

[url= http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/council/councillors/councillor_profiles/andy_botham.asp ]http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/council/councillors/councillor_profiles/andy_botham.asp[/url]

My Google-fu is strong this evening!

Thanks Gavin, i've read some other replies above and it seem Andy is hopeless. I'll try Joan Dixon instead 🙂

Also whats this all about "Chapel Gate (sometimes mistaken for Rushup Edge)" on the DCC site?

Also talking of the LAF, has anyone got the details of "chris allen" he represents cycling...

Also the cost of all this green lane work is £140,000 in total 😯

IIRC it's a different LAF within the national park boundary.

From my experience of working with Councillors and senior council officers, they will need a considerable amount of pressure from outside DCC before they reverse a piece of work done by their officers. This is especially so if they are the Transport member, as they will be meeting with the Head of Transportation/Highways on a weekly basis, so there is a professional relationship to be maintained there.

Getting them on the ground, reviewing the plans with PDNPA, FPD, PeakHorse etc is probably going to be more productive than anything. The greater the breadth of user groups who can be mobilised, the greater the chances of a change of tack.

Just checked, and I think the local MP is Patrick McLoughlin, coincidentally the Secretary of State for Transport, so he'll possibly have a view about this (if he can find time between justifying HS2 and HS3).

You could take a positive view regarding all this.

I mean the council has just dumped tons of perfect trail building material for you.

must be an opportunity to reshape the er natural terrain

That's interesting reading that Cabinet report linked above, as they refer to the Chapel Gate BOAT work as being necessary due to the route being in regular use by vehicles and requiring attention. Well, except that a permanent TRO is in place as per [url= http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/444870/1405-Chapel-Gate-Reg-14-Decision-Notice.pdf ]http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/444870/1405-Chapel-Gate-Reg-14-Decision-Notice.pdf[/url]

That TRO was implemented by the PDNPA to stop all vehicles using the lane - so the two approaches seem entirely in conflict: the former justifies itself on the grounds that it must maintain the route for the very vehicles which have been permanently banned from using the route.

😯

More interesting reading - here's the 24 July 2012 report to Cabinet on their Green Lanes policy:

From that report:

[i]However, the Council will
address the following key concerns:
1. Some consultees felt that the draft document should expressly state
that the County Council should have due regard for the Peak District
National Park and its concurrent powers.
Comment: The County Council has a strong and very positive
working relationship with the Peak District National Park Authority
(PDNPA). A paragraph will be included which expressively
recognises the relationship of the two authorities.[/i]

http://www.peakdistrict.gov.uk/looking-after/local-access-forum

LAF details Rob - Go back over some of their previous meetings as they actually seem quite pro-mtb particularly in respect of their comments to the PDNP cycle strategy.

Kinda reaffirms what I was saying this is the arena Peakmtb need to be feeding into to have any serious input

You may also be able to find details on their recent work if you can get hold of the 2014/2015 RoWIP schedule of works.

Another one...

18/06/2013 report to cabinet on the Rights of Way Improvement Plan statement of action

Some relevant quotes:

[i]Several comments were made expressing concern that the delivery of
the actions could increase the ‘managed’ feel of the network resulting in a reduction in the wilder countryside/natural experience. There are very clear statements within the document in relation to the underlying
themes and the supporting Environmental Statement that should
provide reassurance that this will not be the case.[/i]

[i]Aim 5: Greater Community Involvement
• The comments received in respect to this Aim reinforced the support for the actions to empower local community groups, user groups and local councils to encourage greater involvement in the management and
promotion of the network.[/i]

I got the same generic row locks from DCC as everyone else too. Lucky me!

I've responded via a freedom of information request asking for:
[list]
[*]All information relating to complaints made by users of a rights of way (In particular Chapel Gate) regarding the suitability of that right of way for that users needs [/*]
[*]Information relating to complaints made by users of a rights of way (in particular Chapel Gate) involving personal injury where it was claimed, or considered that DCC or their agents were either negligent or at fault in relation to the maintenance or repair of the right of way.[/*]
[*]Any information relating to the assessment of the maintenance and requirements for the Chapel Gate Bridleway.[/*]
[/list]
I think that covers the basics of: who said it needed repairing, who and how many are these 'many people' who are unable to use Chapel gate and how unsafe was the route before they did any work.

I'm looking forward to my next pointless and uninformative copy/paste reply.

[quote=oldman123 ] many people are unable to use Chapel Gate because of the rocky ‘steps’ which have evolved due to damage over time.

Which is presumably why folk have taken to the ground above the sunken route like here
[img] [/img]

and here
[img] [/img]
??

It won't be too long before that path beside the wall causes the wall itself to collapse.

Is that cyclists, walkers, horses (or a permutation of those) that are using those parallel tracks?

Another one...

18/06/2013 report to cabinet on the Rights of Way Improvement Plan statement of action

DERBYSHIRE.GOV.UK "http://www.derbyshire.gov.uk/images/2013-06-18+New+Statement+Derbyshire's+RoWIP+2013-2017_tcm44-226109.pdf"

Some relevant quotes:

Several comments were made expressing concern that the delivery of
the actions could increase the ‘managed’ feel of the network resulting in a reduction in the wilder countryside/natural experience. There are very clear statements within the document in relation to the underlying
themes and the supporting Environmental Statement that should
provide reassurance that this will not be the case.

Aim 5: Greater Community Involvement
• The comments received in respect to this Aim reinforced the support for the actions to empower local community groups, user groups and local councils to encourage greater involvement in the management and
promotion of the network.

The RoWIP is for the whole of the local authority area so any such comments (200 respondents from a LA population of 770,000) are tenuous at best...

Exciting news! (Kind of)

As part of my original barrage of emails, I cc'd my local councilor, Beth Atkins.

She's said she'll look into this matter (And told me about her arthritis, which was kind of odd.).

However, she addressed the email "Dear Ms Dan1980".... 😕

dan1980.

Good work again.

Whatever the councillor's slight issues with your gender, she sounds like someone who actually bothers with people rather than some feudal lord who gets his underlings to send out generic toss to fob people off.

Keep it going, fella.

Just reading around, it seems momentum is building..........

The path to the side looks harder work than the steps in the bottom picture.

I'm a bit confused: I thought that Chapel gate in the past really was in a mess and genuinely difficult for most users, but can the same really be said for Rushup Edge? I've seen and ridden on the "repairs" to Chapel Gate and the horrible surface made from road planings, but I thought we were now talking about what's in the process of being done to the natural rocky steps of Rushup Edge?

vickypea, Chapel Gate as we know it (the DH into Edale) runs into the Rushup Edge byway that they're working on now. Technically I think they're the same 'Right of Way' in the view of the council. DCC are referring to both bits of trail as Chapel Gate. I guess this is in part an arse-covering strategy, in that the works currently under way could be presented as part of the original horrible 'repairs' they did to Chapel Gate, covered by the same "consultation" and suchlike red-tape.

You might have already seen but having put in a few emails and calls, this will be discussed on BBC Radio Sheffield tomorrow at about 11.15am. Peak MTB will be on

Time to join the forum and participate I reckon. Long time site lurker and PD rider from the Glossop side. I'll start up with the digital pressure and add another voice to the momentum, I've got extended family and friends still here. Having been born and bred here I know what you're up against with DCC, you literally are pissing in the wind (it's pointless going into descriptive insults). PDNPA is the key and leverage, hopefully.

Time to rattle some High Peak bones seeing as though it's Halloween time.

Sancho - Member
You could take a positive view regarding all this.

I mean the council has just dumped tons of perfect trail building material for you.

must be an opportunity to reshape the er natural terrain

I suggested something similar earlier in the thread sancho but i used the same invisible ink as you. I'll try again and who knows, someone might get it.

Dear angry of England,

Please stop writing pointless angry emails to brain dead council folk and use this energy to get off your lazy arses and build a trail specifically for mountains bikes and leave the footpaths for the walkers and horse people.

Yours

The rest of the forking world.

p.s. The old trail looked shit anyway 😀

...and where shall we build it?

PS the old trail didn't look shit.

Names are a bit imprecise, and that's why footpaths and other RoW are given numbers. The northern part (Chapel Gate) is "BOAT 16 Edale parish" and the southern part (Rushup Edge) is "BOAT 144 Chapel-en-le-Frith parish". But they're referring to the whole thing as Chapel Gate.

I've been watching this thread for ages

i haven't ridden up their for ages

The trail was great. I think riding up it was my favourite MTB bit of the Peak

EURO I don' think your helping

The Fredom of information application seems sensible

What is the answer to the side trails? It's clearly an issue that needs adressing

...and where shall we build it?

Seriously? I'd stick to to the angry emails if you have that little imagination.

I'll admit that the trail was visually interesting but to ride it on anything with suspension would be really boring unless you went full tilt and as it's a shared path that'd be dumb. I truly can't see what all the fuss it about.

Thanks for the clarification mintimperial

To quote Euro:

p.s. The old trail looked shit anyway

Then within four posts:

I'll admit that the trail was visually interesting

Strange man. Or just possibly trolling?

Safe to ignore on all counts.

Strange man. Or just possibly trolling?

Safe to ignore on all counts.

Probably never riden a bike outside a trail centre / bike park

Iain1775, we've only had trail centres here for the last couple of years and that's probably why my experience seems so different to the majority of STW. We've cut/built our own trails in Ireland for decades and even though we now have several trail centres, we still prefer to build and ride our own stuff. If you think that rocky walking path makes for a good trail, you wouldn't last 2 minutes in the wild over here 😀

Dannyh, visually interesting and interesting to ride are two different things. I'll admit i'm a strange man round these parts, and you know what? I'm kinda glad. You all seem happy to fire off Points of View style letters but how many of you are prepared to lift a spade and barrow and build something? Call me a troll if that makes you feel better, but actions speak louder than words.

Mr Euro, go back under your bridge. If you want an argument I'm sure there are plenty threads on here where people will be only too happy to oblige but this isn't the place.

Back OT, assuming the works are not suspended (which would seem likely), what would be the legal implications of a load of people going up there with spades and wheelbarrows and making a symbolic gesture of removing some of the rubble? In terms of a protest I think it could be quite effective, but I doubt anyone wants to get into trouble over it.

Let's not bicker about this. DCC will happily wait us out if they can. In fighting will just make their job easier. Those who know the trail love it as it is. For some people it's a challenge getting down, for some the challenge is getting up. Some make it, some don't. However, the fact remains, of all those who ride it, no one wants it turned into something you can find in a suburban park.

Let's stay united against the common enemy that is DCC.

@Euro, we generally can't go round building our own trails here as we don't have the land nor the right to do so. The Peak is a National Park so we certainly can't do it there. I am one who enjoys riding natural trails and given a choice would always ride that rather than a man made trail. I suppose this comes partly from the fact that I've been hiking for 35 years and riding MTB for 10, I took up MTB so I could further enjoy the outdoors and cover more ground than walking.

@Onzadog, well said

I was wondering if we should protest near county hall in matlock. Filling in cracks in roads and pavements with jelly and squirty cream.

DCC couldn't object as their M.O. seems to be unnecessary repairs with inappropriate materials without warning or consultation.

Clocking off time on a Friday might get their attention.

Ok folks, im not trolling with this i promise. Many issues aside i think i can kind of see where they are coming from. Some of those step downs look lots of fun but you wouldnt let a beginner roll them? so it needs fixing as its obviously causing the track to widen as people walk around them. the only other option would be to put another track in i guess and i cant see them doing that.

its not a trail centre is it..

Mr Euro, go back under your bridge

+1

There's a certain ammount of irony in an Irish poster commenting on natural trails.

Ok folks, im not trolling with this i promise. Many issues aside i think i can kind of see where they are coming from. Some of those step downs look lots of fun but you wouldnt let a beginner roll them? so it needs fixing as its obviously causing the track to widen as people walk around them. the only other option would be to put another track in i guess and i cant see them doing that.

its not a trail centre is it..

As others have said, horses and their riders hate the looser sandy surface as it shifts under them, they much prefer a solid but uneven surface that keeps the horse thinking.

And eveyone hate's f****** water bars, which are far harder to ride than steps anyway.

Rather than flatten it, why not use the £70k to reinforce and flat to ribbon on top of the bank.

Just because not everyone can ride it yet, doesn't mean it should be flattened to the point where everyone can.

If you can't ride the bigger ones, walk them until you're happy enough on the smaller one to then give them a go.

How do you think those who can ride them learned to do so?

He's sort of right, it's not the most exciting trail but it is one of the last untouched bits on a generally excellent route and that makes the smoothing of it more pertinent than its original quality.

Andybrad- They have, ironically, got two parallel trails leading up to it along Rushup Edge. A rough, rocky one for walkers and a smooth boggy one with no technical bits for cyclists and horses. I see no reason why they couldn't have put in a proper gravel track on the edges where an alternative line has already developed.

Edit-

why not use the £70k to reinforce and flat to ribbon on top of the bank.

Good idea!

Would have been a better idea had it not been for fat fingers and auto correct, but you get the idea. 😆

dazh - Member
what would be the legal implications of a load of people going up there with spades and wheelbarrows and making a symbolic gesture of removing some of the rubble? In terms of a protest I think it could be quite effective, but I doubt anyone wants to get into trouble over it.

Probably death 😆 Do and see, what have you got to lose?

@Euro, we generally can't go round building our own trails here as we don't have the land nor the right to do so.

Neither do we, but if we didn't, we would have had nowhere to ride up until a couple of years ago. Every once in a while trails like this are sanitised to make them suitable for walkers so we just cut a new one. No big deal really.

There's a certain ammount of irony in an Irish poster commenting on natural trails.

Us Irish are a bit thick so you'll need to explain those big words and their meaning.

I'm not trolling or looking for an argument, just suggesting an alternative that has worked for us here and in other parts of the world.

so it needs fixing as its obviously causing the track to widen as people walk around them. the only other option would be to put another track in i guess and i cant see them doing that.

In my experience of that section, the path on the bank has been created by walkers trying to give people descending more room to pick their line and I expect because walkers don't want to be in a sunken path when a group of bikes arrives from the other direction.

Smoothing the main track out means bikes arriving even faster though, so I fully expect just as many walkers to keep taking the alternate path.

Us Irish are a bit thick so you'll need to explain those big words and their meaning.

The reason you have to dig cheeky trails is the difference in access laws between the UK and Ireland (and including N.Ireland in that as the whole cerfuffle dates back to when the two shared the same legal system). In Ireland you don't have access to many tracks like this because with the exception of 'mass roads' there was a presumption in favour of the landowners right to his private property over any public rights of way. Thus any rights of way in Ireland were the result of landowners declaring them as such, which as a generalisation didn't happen.

We dig trails too, we also have trail centers and natural trails. If you ride one type exclusively you're missing out.

Do and see, what have you got to lose?

I'm not trolling or looking for an argument, just suggesting an alternative that has worked for us here and in other parts of the world.

Euro, there are 4.5 million people in the whole of Ireland. There are over 16 million people living within an hour of the Peak District National Park. That's nearly four times as many as live in your whole country, in a much smaller area. It's possible because of this that things might be a bit different over here. Things that work for you in your part of the world might not work for us. And just setting off digging trails across the hills wherever we fancy definitely won't.

Smoothing the main track out means bikes arriving even faster though, so I fully expect just as many walkers to keep taking the alternate path.

Ok folks, im not trolling with this i promise. Many issues aside i think i can kind of see where they are coming from. Some of those step downs look lots of fun but you wouldnt let a beginner roll them? so it needs fixing as its obviously causing the track to widen as people walk around them. the only other option would be to put another track in i guess and i cant see them doing that.

its not a trail centre is it..

Exactly, it's not a trail centre! Probably the two biggest user groups, walkers followed by mtbers, don't really care for flat boring trails in the countryside. Sure, there will be people with access difficulties who require easier paths, but they're very much a minority - not that they shouldn't be catered for, but there are plenty of other paths in the area that meet those specific requirements...

The Radio Sheffield article has just started. [url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/radiosheffield ]here[/url]